2025:JHHC:20013 IN THE HIGH COURT OF JHARKHAND AT RANCHI W.P.(C) No. 4201 of 2023 ------ Md. Naseh Sagheer, aged about 34 years, son of Late Mohammad Sagheer, resident of Nayasarai, P.O. & P.S.-Nagri, District- Ranchi. .... .... …. Petitioner Versus 1. The State of Jharkhand through its Chief Secretary, Government of Jharkhand, Project Bhawan, P.O. & P.S.-Dhurwa, District-Ranchi; 2. Deputy Commissioner, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District-Gumla; 3. Additional Collector, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District-Gumla; 4. District Land Acquisition Officer, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla; 5. Project Director, National Highway Authority of India (NH-23 Palma- Gumla), Gumla Project, Gokul Nagar, Gumla, P.O. & P.S.- Gumla, District- Gumla. .... .... .... Respondents ------ CORAM: HON'BLE MR. JUSTICE RAJESH SHANKAR ------ For the Petitioner : Mr. Ajit Kumar, Advocate For the State : Mr. Sanket Khanna, A.C. to A.A.G-V For the NHAI : Mrs. Sweety Topno, Advocate Mr. Amrit Raj Kisku, Advocate ------ Order No.07 Dated- 22-07-2025 The present writ petition has been filed for quashing of the Letter No. 50 dated 19.05.2023 (Annexure-10 to the writ petition) issued by the respondent no.4 whereby the matter with respect to payment of compensation for acquisition of the land-in-question has been referred to the learned Principal Judicial Commissioner, Ranchi under Section 3-H (4) of the National Highways Act, 1956 as according to the petitioner, there is no dispute with respect to the claim of compensation for the said land. 2. Learned counsel for the petitioner submits that on 13.10.2022 a settlement was entered between the petitioner as well as Md. Imtiaz Anari and Parwez Alam. As per the said settlement, Md. Imtiaz Anari and Parwez Alam had given no objection with respect to payment of compensation for the land-in-question to the petitioner. 3. A counter-affidavit has been filed on behalf of the State- respondents wherein the aforesaid factual aspect asserted by 2025:JHHC:20013 the petitioner has not been admitted. Otherwise also, Md. Imtiaz Anari and Parwez Alam have not been arrayed as party respondents in this case. 4. Hence, this Court is not inclined to entertain the aforesaid prayer made in the writ petition and the same is accordingly dismissed. 5. It, however, goes without saying that if at all there has been any settlement between the petitioner and the aforesaid two persons with respect to payment of compensation for the land-in-question, the same can appropriately be raised before the concerned Court where the referred dispute is presently pending. (Rajesh Shankar, J.) RKM/-